Download Working While Studying: Impact on Marketing Students

Working while studying: Impact on marketing students’ experience of group
work
Steven Ward and Simone Volet, Murdoch University.
Abstract
Around 70% of Australian students have reported working more than 12 hours a week.
Recent large scale research in the UK suggests that there is a negative relationship
between hours worked and academic achievement. There is, however, no research to
the authors’ knowledge as to how the number of working hours affect student learning
in groups, and whether students in groups with varying work patterns report different
learning outcomes compared to groups with similar work patterns. This study reports
that, overall, greater working hours decreases students’ perceptions of the value as well
as their experience of group work, and that this occurs more with 2nd and 3rd year than
1st year students. It also reveals that, students studying in groups with a large
proportion of members working more than 2 days a week displayed significantly more
negative appraisals of their experience at the end of a project than their peers in groups
where few students were working.
Literature Review
Undergraduate students majoring in Marketing are required to engage in multiple group
projects throughout their undergraduate study. The educational value of group learning
activities in professional programs is well established, and group projects have become
an integral part of university marketing education. The benefits of group projects,
however, can only be achieved if students fully engage in such activities. Recent
research (Hansen, 2006 and Paswan and Gollokota 2004) has revealed that many
university students report negative experiences of group work and this has extended to
marketing students (McCorkle, Reardon, Alexander, Kling, Harris and Iyer 1999).
According to students, the reasons for negative experiences are multiple but sociodynamic aspects dominate, for example, peers’ lack of commitment to contribute to the
group effort.
Both a positive and negative factor in group learning leading to these outcomes has
been the element of group diversity. Some researchers in marketing education (Amato
and Amato 2005 and Hernandez 2002) have suggested that more diverse student teams
in terms of gender and ethnic makeup will produce more positive outcomes of group
learning, even when different communication styles existed within a group. This
relationship, however, appears to be moderated by group cohesion (Deter-Schmelz,
Kennedy and Ramsey 2002). Amato and Amato (2005) also suggest that students need
skills to manage personality differences in groups in order to achieve benefits of
diversity in skills and backgrounds. Group Cohesion may be more difficult to achieve
when students have different working patterns. A recent large-scale UK study, across a
number of universities and academic disciplines (Callender, 2008) stressed the
detrimental impact of term-time employment on students’ academic achievement. The
present study examines the extent to which a substantial work commitment is
detrimental to marketing students’ engagement in the valuable learning opportunity
presented by group work.
The study focuses on students’ general attitude towards group work, as well as on
students’ multi-dimensional appraisals of a specific group project as it evolves over a
semester. Students’ retrospective reflections of their group processes are also examined.
Data analysis is carried out at individual level as well as small group level.
1
Three hypotheses were generated for this study
H1: Students’ general attitude towards group work, as well as appraisals of a specific
group project will be related to their paid work commitment (more than two days a
week assumed to represent the threshold where work starts interfering with academic
study).
H2: Prior experience of group work at university (2nd/3rd year versus 1st year students)
will mediate the impact of work commitment on attitude and appraisals towards such
activities, with first year students expected to be more affected on the ground that they
are still adjusting to university study at the same time as coping with paid employment.
H3: Students who undertake a group project in a small group where at least half of the
group members have substantial work commitments will display more negative
attitudes and appraisals of that project than those who carry out the project in a group
where at least half of the group members are not engaged in paid work outside study.
Methodology
Participants were 222 marketing students (n=81 enrolled in a 1st year unit and n=141
enrolled in a 2nd or 3rd year unit). Each unit required students to complete a group
assignment in small self-selected groups of 3-4 students over a period of 8 weeks. In
each unit, students received a group mark for the group work, which formed 20-25% of
their individual mark for the whole marketing unit.
Procedure and research instruments
Participants completed a matched questionnaire in class, at the beginning and end of the
group project. The beginning questionnaire elicited information on their weekly paid
work commitments (5 categories, ranging from none to less than 5 hours, between 5-15
hours, between 15 and 30 hours, and above 30 hours). On both occasions, students rated
their multi-dimensional appraisals of their current specific group assignment (SAGA
instrument), their general views about mixing international and local students for group
assignments, as well as their general attitude towards group work.
The contextualised version of the SAGA (Students' Appraisals of a Group Assignment)
instrument (Volet, 2001), containing six sub-scales (5 items each) is designed for
repeated administration. It is used to measure students’ appraisals of Cognitive benefits,
Motivating influence, Affect, Management, Group assessment and Interpersonal aspects
of their current group project. Sample items are: ‘Interacting with peers for this group
assignment will enrich my knowledge and understanding’ (Cognitive Benefits); ‘Group
assessment is unacceptable for this assignment’ (Group Assessment). Items are rated on
a 4-point Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 4=Strongly agree. The psychometric
properties of the 6 sub-scales were established using Rasch analysis and a software
program called RUMM 2020 (Andrich, Sheridan & Luo, 2005). The tests of fit of the
model showed satisfactory targeting of the responding population and separation
indexes (similar to Cronbach alpha), ranging from 0.65 to 0.76.
The 5-item Cultural mix scale, also developed and analysed according to principles of
Rasch measurement is used to assess students’ general view about completing
assignments in groups comprising both international and local students. Its
psychometric properties were good with a separation index of 0.85. Finally, the measure
of general attitude towards group work was a single-item scale (1 Not positive to 4 Very
positive).
Only data from groups for which we had a full data set (survey responses were received
from every member) was retained for the group analyses. The group analyses, therefore,
2
involved comparing the attitudes and appraisals over the duration of the group
assignment of 17 students (from 4 groups where at least half of their members worked
more than two days a week) with those of 21 students (from 5 groups where at least half
of their members did not have paid employment).
Results
Work patterns were collapsed into three categories, with 74 students (33%) working
over two days a week, 80 (35.5%) working between 1-15 hours, and 71 (31.5%) who
did not have any paid work commitments. The distribution was relatively even across
year levels. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations overall by work category on
the two occasions.
There was substantial support for H1 (Students’ general attitude towards group work, as
well as appraisals of a specific group project will be related to their paid work
commitment). While students general attitude towards group work was not related to
their work patterns at the beginning of the group assignment it was strongly the case at
the end (p<.01) with all results in the expected direction. Furthermore, four of the six
appraisals of the specific group assignment were significantly related to students’ work
commitments on both occasions (Cognitive benefits, p<.001, p<.05; Motivating
influence, p<.05, p<.01; Affect, p<.001, p<.01; and Management p<.01, p<.05).
Students’ general attitude towards mixing local and international students for group
assignments was also highly significantly related to students’ work patterns on both
occasions (p<001; p<.001) suggesting that students expected to experience increased
challenges if they undertook group assignments in diverse groups. Students’ concerns in
that regard appear inconsistent with recent research evidence that students who
completed their assignment in culturally diverse groups report greater satisfaction with
the role of their group and greater social cohesion, than their counterparts who stayed in
homogenous groups (Kimmel & Volet, submitted).
There was no support for H2 (Prior experience of group work at university, [2nd/3rd year
versus 1st year students] will mediate the impact of work commitment on attitude and
appraisals towards such activities, with first year students expected to be more affected
on the ground that they are still adjusting to university study at the same time as coping
with paid employment). In fact, a significant opposite pattern emerged. For 1st year
students, amount of paid work was not related to any attitude or appraisal measures,
except Cultural mix, with on both occasions students heavily engaged in paid work
showing a more negative attitude towards mixing (p<.05; p<.01). In contrast, 2nd/3rd
year students’ work patterns were significantly related to all attitude and appraisal
measures on both occasions (except Interpersonal).
Finally, strong support was found for H3 (Students who undertake a group project in a
small group where at least half of the group members have substantial work
commitments will display more negative attitudes and appraisals of that project than
those who carry out the project in a group where at least half of the group members are
not engaged in paid work outside study). Mixed between-within subjects ANOVA was
carried out for peers working pattern (high versus low) by time for general attitude
towards group work and the six appraisals of the group assignment. There was no
interaction effect overall, but main effects for peers working pattern (p<.01) and for
time (p<.01) overall. Univariate tests revealed two interaction effects, one for Affect
(p<.05) and one for Group assessment (p<.05), with on both occasions students in lowworking groups not changing their attitudes or appraisals over time, and those in the
high-working groups displaying significantly more negative appraisals at the end. Table
3
1 shows all the group differences within occasions and the significant patterns of
change over time for each group.
Table 1: Appraisals of a specific group assignment, general attitude towards group
work and towards cultural mix by peers working pattern and over time
Measure
Pre-task
Peers working pattern
Mean (SD)
Post-task
Change
Mean (SD)
SAGA measures
Cognitive benefits
High working
1.23 (1.92)
0.38 (2.24)
Low-working
2.85 (1.80)*
2.05 (1.89)*
Motivating influence
High working
0.39 (1.37)
-0.66 (1.71)
Low-working
1.22 (1.31)m
0.94 (1.45)**
Affect
High working
0.61 (1.98)
-0.60 (2.42)
Low-working
2.32 (1.34)**
2.22 (2.89)***
Interpersonal
High working
0.07 (0.61)
0.19 (1.65)
Low-working
0.83 (1.38)*
1.46 (1.38)*
Management
High working
0.06 (1.16)
-0.63 (1.00)
Low-working
0.34 (0.81)
0.44 (1.41)**
Group Assessment
High working
0.63 (1.06)
-0.47 (1.74)
Low-working
1.87 (1.38)**
1.70 (1.60)***
General attitude to:
Group work
High working
2.24 (0.90)
1.88 (0.80)
Low-working
2.86 (0.57)
2.95 (0.74)***
Cultural mix
High working
0.36 (1.42)
-0.63 (2.39)
Low-working
2.56 (1.79)**
2.17 (1.95)***
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001, m =marginal, p<.10.
Working: N = 17; Low-working N = 21
p
*↓
ns
** ↓
ns
** ↓
ns
ns
ns
**↓
ns
** ↓
ns
*↓
ns
ns
ns
Conclusion
The results suggest the need for group learning as pedagogy to be carefully considered
by marketing educators, as it appears that students’ learning in groups is adversely
affected by substantial hours of part time employment. It seems that this becomes more
of a problem in second and third year as the demands for student projects, for example,
a market research study by a group of students become greater.
One way of accommodating the issue might be for marketing educators to allocate some
class time for the group activities. Two-hour formats of workshops may enhance the
quality of group work processes and outcomes, as teachers would have opportunities to
provide support to individual groups. The use of online learning tools such as group
manager in Blackboard may also help students communicate and exchange information
such as documents more readily than is traditionally the case. How groups cope when a
4
large proportion of their members are constrained by their members’ work commitment
is not well known.
One limitation of the present study is the fact that the group analyses could only be
conducted with those groups where all members had completed both the beginning and
end questionnaires. This would have excluded groups that disintegrated since under
such circumstances probably only a few members completed the end questionnaire. The
experience of such groups needs to be understood as well. There is clearly a need for indepth qualitative research on the challenges of group learning in marketing education,
in particular when many students work and study at the same time. The literature on the
dynamics of group learning has stressed the significance of group cohesion (DeterSchemlz et al, 2002) and of students’ capacity for managing personality differences
(e.g. Amato & Amato, 2004) but less is known about how students manage,
individually and perhaps sometimes collectively, the challenges of external constraints
to group learning. How groups successfully negotiate the high work commitments of
their members in order to achieve positive outcomes needs to be better understood in
order for teachers to provide the best support to student groups.
Overall, the results of our research confirm the larger study in the UK by Callender
(2008), who noted the negative impact across the board of students engaging in
substantial amounts of part-time work. The present study goes even further by
demonstrating that students who have high work commitments also display more
negative attitudes towards working in culturally mixed groups than those who have low
work commitments. This finding is of serious concern for multicultural societies and
work environments that feature cultural diversity. Since a capacity for productive
teamwork is well recognised by employers as a critical graduate attribute, educators
should not consider giving up on group work. It is these authors’ belief that if they did,
the quality of students’ higher education, and in particular the quality of professional
preparation for the workplace, could be compromised. Addressing this issue at the
educational level, however, can only be limited. The problem of students having high
part-time work commitments while they are studying full-time is a broader issue that
needs to be tackled at the political level.
Callender (2008) noted that many of the students in his study reported working in low
paid jobs, often below the hourly rate for the minimum wage, which raises an equity
issue. These students specified that they were working as a means of paying off their
student loans, since the government had not maintained financial support. Callender
pointed to the fact that students with high work commitments typically came from less
wealthy families, so it is possible that present government policy of a minimal student
support may entrench disadvantage by forcing students from poorer backgrounds to
work more and achieve less because they have to work to support themselves. He
suggests that there may well be a trade off between the financial support provided to
students and the quality of graduates in the future. The situation may be similar in other
countries, like Australia and New Zealand. While our research did not address this
issue, this is an important avenue for future research on a much larger national study.
5
References
Amato, C., H., & Amato, L. H. 2005. Enhancing student team effectiveness:
Application of Myers-Briggs personality assessment in Business courses. Journal of
Marketing Education, 271, 41-51.
Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. 2005. Rasch unidimensional measurement
models: A windows-based item analysis program employing Rasch models
RUMM2020. Perth, Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory.
Burdett, J. 2003. Making groups work: University students’ perceptions. International
Education Journal, 43, 177-191.
Callender, C. 2008. The impact of term-time employment on higher education students.
Journal of Education Policy, 234, 359-377.
Deter-Schmelz, D., Kennedy, K. & Ramsey, R. 2002. Enriching our understanding of
student team effectiveness, Journal of Marketing Education 242, 114-124.
Hansen, R. S. 2006. Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for
improving teach project. Journal of Education for business, 821, 11-19.
Hernandez, S. 2002. Team learning in a Marketing Principles course: Cooperative
structures that facilitate active learning and higher level thinking, Journal of Marketing
Education, 241, 73-85.
Karns, G. 2005. An update of Marketing student perceptions of learning activities:
Structure, preferences, and effectiveness, Journal of Marketing Education, 272, 163171.
Kimmel, K. & Volet, S. submitted. Experience of culturally diverse and non-diverse
group work at university: A dynamic, multi-dimensional and contextual approach.
McCorkle, D., Reardon, J., Alexander, J., Kling, N., Harris, R. & Iyer, V. 1999.
Undergraduate Marketing students’ group projects and teamwork: The good, the bad
and the ugly? Journal of Marketing Education, 212, 106-117.
Pauli, R., Mohiyeddini, C., Bray, D., Michie, F., & Street, B. 2007. Individual
differences in negative group work experiences in collaborative student learning.
Educational Psychology, 281, 47-58.
Paswan, A. and Gollokota, K., 2004. Dimensions of Peer Evaluation, Overall
Satisfaction, and Overall Evaluation: An Investigation in a Group Task Environment.
Journal of Education for Business, March/April, 794, 225-231.
Volet, S.E. 2001. Significance of cultural and motivational variables on students'
appraisals of group work. In F. Salili, C.Y. Chiu, & Y.Y. Hong Eds. Student
Motivation: The Culture and Context of Learning ch15 pp. 309-334. New York:
Plenum.
6